Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Does Vigneault Get "out-Coached" In The Postseason?


elvis15

Recommended Posts

Here's an interesting take on the series from Thomas Drance over at Canucks Army, about why we're down 0-3 and if it's deserved or not:

This is Vigneault's sixth full season as the Canucks head-coach, he's the winningest head-coach in franchise history, his radical deployment strategies are clearly innovative, and he's brought the team to within a game of hoisting the most storied championship trophy in all of sports. In his six seasons at the helm of the Canucks, he's only missed the playoffs once and while this will likely change over the next week, none of his teams have never been eliminated in the first round of postseason.

...

If we're relying on the underlying numbers, the same numbers I used to predict the Los Angeles Kings winning this first round series against the Canucks, Vigneault's Canucks have never, not once, squandered a series against a team with an inferior fenwick tied. Fenwick tied percentage is the predictive metric I trust the most for forecasting long-term team success, and in every Canucks series loss since 2007, the team that defeated the Canucks was a better possession side than Vancouver was during those seasons. Vigneault has, however, been at the helm while the Canucks swept a club with a superior Fenwick tied (St. Louis in 2009) and defeated another opponent that was a superior possession side (Dallas in 2007). When and if the team does lose their fourth game to the Kings at some point, Vigneault's record of never having lost a series against an inferior possession team will remain intact.

Canucks fans always bring up the way Joel Quennville, apparently, man-handled Vigneault during the three Blackhawks series. The fact is, however, that the better team won in all three of those series.

...

In game one, the Canucks were pulverized at even-strength by Anze Kopitar's line. It became clear that Samme Pahlsson wasn't going to be able to handle Kopitar, and that something had to give. Vigneault's adjustments were perfect, and while the team hasn't turned the tide in terms of "winning games," they've been the better five-on-five team as a result of Vigneault's adjustments in this series.

What are those adjustments exactly? Well he's hard-matched Kesler against Kopitar, rationalized his defensive pairings and loaded his top-six with his actual best six forwards (Hansen, Higgins, Sedin, Kesler, Booth, Burrows). The hope has been that Pahlsson, Lapierre and Raymond can play the Stoll line to a draw (something they have managed to do), and that the club can cope playing with a shorter bench. Pahlsson's inability to counteract Kopitar hurt the Canucks "depth advantage" in the series, but that's hardly Vigneault's fault - and he should be credited for reversing the flow of play, and turning it in the Canucks favour this series.

We're all disappointed that the Canucks are likely to lose in the first round this season, and have yet to win a Stanley Cup with their current core. Some of that is on Vigneault, I suppose, but we'll get into that once this season is properly said and done. In the meantime, the Los Angeles Kings are another postseason opponent that, guess what, were a better possession side than the Canucks were this season. Losing to this Kings team in the first round was always a very real possibility, and that's when we thought Daniel would be in the lineup.

Even without Daniel, Vigneault saw what wasn't working in game one and fixed it, only to be betrayed by the club's disastrous special teams in game two and unfortunate puck-luck in game three. The Vancouver market is turning their blow-torch on Vigneault's seat, and it is doubtlessly becoming a sweltering hot seat indeed. Some of that is fair, some it is weird, and some of it is totally baseless. The notion that Vigneault is consistently out-coached in the postseason falls into the third category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People make it seem like any other coach could come in and do better. I hope we don't have to find out the hard way exactly how good a coach AV really is. I like people that can come up with statistics for or against him. Mostly his supporters seem to use stats to prove the point. His detractors seem to assume a loss is because he was outcoached.

Anyway, good post, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think AV is a good coach. He'll never be the best, but he's among the upper half imo. I mean, our mentality for the team has allowed us to make the SCF last year. Yeah, being down 3-0 in the series sucks, but I mean its not entirely the coach's fault, he's not the one who scores goals for our team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure coaching is part of it. What's annoying is when people blame coaching only, and all of a sudden it's not Canucks vs Kings, it's Vigneault vs Sutter or Julien or Quenneville. You could say every coach that loses a series is out coached too. The players are the ones that have to actually do the job. And also, it's not like coaches are the only ones responsible for strategies and stuff. The players themselves can pick up on things, have input, and create their own personal strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can't remember anyone saying that AV out coached other coaches when the canucks beat teams last year....when canucks win, it is the players that did it, but when they lose, all of a sudden, it's the coach being out coached.....coaching isn't the problem here, unless your saying it's the coaches fault, he couldn't find any combinations that could put the puck in the net.....

in the end, the players have to look in the mirror and put the blame where it really belongs....

i have never owned an nhl team, been a general manager, coached in the nhl or played on an nhl team, so my comments are just my opinion and in no way means, i know what i'm talking about.....i'll leave the decisions to the people that have the experience of analyzing all facets of the game....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure coaching is part of it. What's annoying is when people blame coaching only, and all of a sudden it's not Canucks vs Kings, it's Vigneault vs Sutter or Julien or Quenneville. You could say every coach that loses a series is out coached too. The players are the ones that have to actually do the job. And also, it's not like coaches are the only ones responsible for strategies and stuff. The players themselves can pick up on things, have input, and create their own personal strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole coaching staff is out coached. They have a very gifted team that excells in the regular season. But when the intensity ramps up you can not win with skill alone. The power play, break outs, the defence positioning are all coaching decisions. Regular season are skilled players make up for lack of coaching with there skill. Now that LA has ramped up there intensity and droped into a trapping situation. Our boys aren't being or werent coached to deal with it. You can't tell me all the defencive missed assignments are all on the players, or lack of a power play is all Daniel Sedin. Its called lack of coaching plain and simple. Let's hope are chance a at cup doesn't run out because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Brown Burrows

St. Louis '09 & San Jose '11 are the only two series where it was obvious that he was the better coach in that series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can't remember anyone saying that AV out coached other coaches when the canucks beat teams last year....when canucks win, it is the players that did it, but when they lose, all of a sudden, it's the coach being out coached.....coaching isn't the problem here, unless your saying it's the coaches fault, he couldn't find any combinations that could put the puck in the net.....

in the end, the players have to look in the mirror and put the blame where it really belongs....

i have never owned an nhl team, been a general manager, coached in the nhl or played on an nhl team, so my comments are just my opinion and in no way means, i know what i'm talking about.....i'll leave the decisions to the people that have the experience of analyzing all facets of the game....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest thing that has annoyed me this series is how we continue to dump the puck in around the boards. Every single time, Quick comes out and plays it up to a defenceman and they break out.

You can't beat a team with the forcheck like that if their goalie is good at handling the puck. We need to put the puck where Quick can't get it, and beat their D with an agreesive forecheck. Or you know, actually make plays off the rush...

I've seen no attempt to adapt to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that AV does get out-coached from time to time...by AV. It kinda reminds me of that scene from Princess Bride where the guy tries to out-think the other guy and ends up drinking the poison himself. Sometimes simpler is better, and occasionally AV (who is a very smart coach) just makes things too complicated (with line combos/matching, starting goalie secrets etc. etc.). It also reminds me of the scene from Indiana Jones where the bad guy does all those complicated sword tricks and Indy just pulls out his gun and shoots him. In the playoffs, the pressure on-ice gets multiplied by the off-ice pressures and head games, sometimes simpler is better. Lappy had success with Henrik, go with it. Kes and Higgy have chemistry, go with it. Schneider is a better goalie right now, go with it. No games, no BS, just keep it simple. Make the other coach have to out coach you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...